ORIGINAL ARTICLE
COMPUTERISED TURKISH VERSIONS OF TESTS FOR CENTRAL AUDITORY PROCESSING DISORDER
 
More details
Hide details
1
Hacettepe University Medical Faculty E.N.T Deaprtment, Audiology and Speech Pathology Unit
2
Ankara University Medical Faculty Paediatric Genetic Department, Audiology and Speech Pathology Unit
3
Hacettepe University Medical Faculty Biophysics Department
4
Private Rehabilitation Center, Audiology and Speech Pathology Unit
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Meral Didem Turkyilmaz   

Meral Didem Turkyilmaz, Hacettepe University Medical Faculty E.N.T Deaprtment, Audiology and Speech Pathology Unit, e-mail: didemcanatan@yahoo.com
Publication date: 2020-04-20
 
J Hear Sci 2012;2(1):30–35
 
ABSTRACT
Background:
To detect central auditory processing disorder (CAPD), a test battery is needed that probes the integrity of the central auditory nervous system and describes its response parameters. The audiologist needs to select a well-designed test battery that examines a variety of auditory performance areas. Computer-controlled adaptive tests are recommended because they maximise test efficiency and minimise floor and ceiling effects as well as minimising memory load. In order to increase test efficiency and minimise difficulties and training, we adapted computerised versions of the Frequency Pattern test and the Duration Pattern test.

Material and Methods:
The present study was conducted at Hacettepe University, Turkey, in the Faculty of Medicine’s Otorhinolarnygology Department, Audiology and Speech Pathology Unit. In total, 80 children (43 girls, 37 boys) aged between 7 years 0 months and 11 years 11 months were recruited. Each participant completed an informed consent form and a biographical survey prior to the tests. All tests were administered according to instructions at a comfortable listening level on a calibrated laptop computer which delivered a ‘Frequency Pattern’ test and a ‘Duration Pattern’ test.

Results:
Normative test results are presented. Scores obtained by both tests were evaluated as percent scores for clinical study.

Conclusions:
We adapted the computerised versions of the Frequency Pattern and Duration Pattern tests. Norm percent scores were obtained. We are continuing development of a computerised test battery that will include “gaps in noise” and “dichotic digits” tests using touch-screen protocols.

 
REFERENCES (20)
1.
Emanual D: The auditory processing battery: survey of common practices. J Amer Acad Audiol, 2002; 13: 93–117.
 
2.
Yalçınkaya F, Keith R: Understanding auditory processing disorders. Turk J Pediatr, 2008; 50: 101–5.
 
3.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, (Central) Auditory Processing Disorders, Working Group on Auditory Processing Disorders, Technical report, 2005.
 
4.
Chermak GD, Musiek FE: Handbook of (central) auditory processing disorder: Auditory Neuroscience and Diagnosis Volume I. San Diego: Plural Publishing, 2007.
 
5.
Jerger J, Musiek F: Report of the consensus conference on the diagnosis of auditory processing disorders in school-aged children. J Ameri Acad Audiol, 2000; 11: 467–74.
 
6.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Central auditory processing: Current status of research and implications for clinical practice. Am J Audiol, 1996; 5: 41–54.
 
7.
Erickson K: (C)APD testing and interpreting 101: Recommendations for audiologists, Presented in Audiology Online, 2008 from http://www.audiologyonline.com....
 
8.
Musiek FE: Frequency (pitch) and duration pattern tests. J Am Acad Audiol, 1994; 5: 265–68.
 
9.
MATLAB 7.10. The MathWorks, Inc., Massachusetts, U.S.A.
 
10.
Musiek F, Baran J, Pinheiro M: Duration pattern recognition in normal subjects and patients with cerebral and cochlear lesions. Audiology, 1990; 29: 304–13.
 
11.
Chermak GD, Musiek FE: Central Auditory Processing Disorders: New Perspectives. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, 1997.
 
12.
Philips DP: Central auditory system and central auditory processing disorders: some conceptual issues. Seminars in Hearing, 2002; 23(4): 251–62.
 
13.
Demanez L, Demanez JP: Central auditory processing assessment. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol, 2004; 125: 281–86.
 
14.
Musiek FE: The frequency pattern test: a guide. Hearing Journal, 2002, 55(6): 58.
 
15.
Kelly A: Normative data for behavioural tests of auditory processing for New Zealand school children aged 7 to 12 years. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Audiology, 2007; 29(1): 60–64.
 
16.
Stollman M, Velzen E, Siemkens H et al: Development of auditory processing in 6-to-12 year old children: a longitudinal study. International Journal of Audiology, Int J Audiol, 2004; 43(1): 34–44.
 
17.
Keith RW: Development and standardization of SCAN-A: test of auditory processing disorders in adolescents and adults. J Am Acad Audiol, 1995; 6: 286–92.
 
18.
Keith RW: Development and standardization of SCAN-C test for auditory processing disorders in children. J Am Acad Audiol, 2000; 11: 438–45.
 
19.
Musiek FE, Bellis TJ, Chermak GD: Nonmodularity of the CANS: implications for (central) auditory processing disorder. Am J Audiol, 2005; 14(2): 128–38.
 
20.
Shinn JB, Musiek FE: The auditory steady state response in individuals with neurological insult of the central auditory nervous system. J Am Acad Audiol, 2007; 18(10): 826–45.